W. S. ROBINSON
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a reckless driving conviction on certiorari because the charging affidavit was unconstitutionally vague and failed to inform the defendant of the specific conduct constituting the alleged offense. The court held that a defendant has the fundamental right to know from the language of the charge what conduct forms the basis of the prosecution.
The affidavit should have been quashed as unconstitutionally vague and indefinite. An affidavit must contain sufficient specificity to apprise the defendant of the actual conduct for which he is being prosecuted, and a mere conclusory allegation of 'careless and reckless manner' fails to meet this standard.
“The language of the affidavit is so vague and indefinite as not to apprise the defendant of the act or conduct for which he is being prosecuted.”
Establishes the constitutional defect—the affidavit fails to adequately inform the defendant of the specific charges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW. S. Robinson was charged with unlawfully operating a motor vehicle on public highways in Bay County, Florida in a careless and reckless manner on Ma…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This case is before us on certiorari to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Bay County, Florida, affirming judgment of conviction of the petitioner which conviction was had upon an affidavit in the following language, to-wit:
“Before me, County Judge, in and for said County, personally came E. L. Bush, who being by me duly sworn, says that on the 16th day of MÍarch, A. D. 1932, in the County aforesaid, one W. S. Robinson then and there being did unlawfully operate a certain motor vehicle on the public highways of Bay County, Florida, in a careless and reckless manner, contrary to- the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.”
*855Motion was made to quash the affidavit on two grounds. First, “The said affidavit is vague and indefinite.” Second, “Said affidavit does not charge the defendant with any crime or offense punishable under the laws of Florida.”
We think the affidavit should have been quashed on the first ground of- the motion. The language of the affidavit is so vague and indefinite as not to apprise the defendant of the act or conduct for which he is being prosecuted. The affidavit charges a mere conclusion that the defendant operated the motor vehicle on the public highways of Bay County, Florida, in a “careless and reckless manner.” From the allegations of this affidavit alone it was impossible for defendant to know what act or circumstance constituted the alleged infraction of the law. If the charge as stated was sufficient the State might have proceeded to prove that he was operating an automobile without sufficient brakes, or that he was operating an automobile at a rate of speed which at the time and place constituted a careless and reckless operation of the automobile, or it might have proved that he did not maintain control of the car by keeping in touch with the steering wheel and other controlling parts of the car. We might name many other specific acts which would constitute careless and reckless conduct in driving an automobile.
A defendant has the right to know from the language of the charge against him what conduct on his part is the basis of that charge.
For the reason stated, the judgment should be quashed.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
- Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Katharine Mitchell Jackson LEE v. Corydon W. Carpenter, 132 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…valid and unimpeachable title. * * * ” This is especially true in Florida where ad valorem taxes are a charge against the land itself and not against the owners of the various estates therein. See Florida Industrial Co. v. State, 1934, 114 Fla. 1, 152 So. 717, and Jacksonville Expressway Authority v. Milford, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 778. The majority rule, where the law does not provide for separate taxation of mineral rights or estates, is fully exemplified by decisions from Oklahoma, Iowa and West Vir…
-
State v. Verhoeven (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2018)